"Washington wants to curb Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's anti-American influence by lobbying allies to try to expose any anti-democratic policies, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday..."

"Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, and influential player on U.S. policy toward Latin America, said Chavez may give $50 million to the Palestinian group Hamas, which the United States considers a terrorist organization...

"...Such a move would further strain deteriorating ties between the United States and one of its top oil suppliers after the countries each expelled diplomats this year in a dispute over alleged U.S. espionage.

"Chavez has said the United States wants to put sanctions on Venezuela for being a state sponsor of terrorism...(CONTINUED...)

Has anyone considered the possibility of seizing CITGO assets in the U.S. I mean, nationalize and then auction them off to Chevron or Valero. Is this possible and does it make sense or would it just precipitate a global financial meltdown?

My initial response is that the nations and representatives that Rice calls and discusses Venezuela with is going to then be a bit more informed as to what the U.S. considers the nation with Chavez in place to be.

It's a step short of President Bush saying as much in a speech, which he is almost certainly not going to do unless Chavez strikes out moreso than he already has.

It's not so much going to do anything to CURB Chavez so much as it's certainly frustrating him, given his egomaniacal perspectives about his sense of "macho" -- just look at how he reacts to the telephone calls by Rice about him, it's a personally threatening thing to him. Especially from A WOMAN! He's already said that he considers Rice a woman who needs, well, male sexual attention.

Sorry, my mistake. Here I thought I was doing what was proper, and avoiding the "this thread has been removed because...(copyright restrictions)..."

The copyright notice with the article, however, does state very clearly that Reuters DOES NOT ALLOW FOR REPRODUCTION OF THE ARTICLE IN ANY CAPACITY. Thus, I thought an excerpt was an acceptable workaround to that restriction.

Go to the article, scan to the bottom, read it yourself. Pretty stern language and restrictions. In fact, it also says it does not want even a part of their work reproduced elsewhere so even this excerpt is questionable, as would be any from Reuters.

All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Has anyone considered the possibility of seizing CITGO assets in the U.S. I mean, nationalize and then auction them off to Chevron or Valero. Is this possible and does it make sense or would it just precipitate a global financial meltdown?

We seized the US operations of Bayer and sold them off to a patent-medicine company during WW 1

We are not extracting content for any commercial purpose, but for discussion only. That would seem to allow it under the doctrine of fair use.

And we are certainly not trying to steal the content and pass it off as our own. That is why links are required for every story posted here. Proper attribution is given.

As a practical matter, Free Republic will honor an exerpt-only request from a news source if they are so stinkin' afraid of us posting and commenting on their stories.

But the advantage of posting the whole article here is that links often expire, stories at the link may get edited from what initially appeared, or the story might become inaccessible in their archives.

Presumably you thought the story was important or you wouldn't have posted it. A large percentage of viewers will not click through, so anything you don't post here will never get seen.

My feeling is that if you aren't required to excerpt it per the FR list of excerpt only sites, and you do it anyway, you're signaling that the story isn't very important. Which also means you shouldn't have posted any of it.

I'm following the Reuters Copyright Notice as to exerpting some of their content. It never occured to me that it would be considered of lesser importance because it's exerpted. I certainly don't consider that with other excerpts, limited for whatever reason.

I think the criticism about this is petty and foolish. What about the ARTICLE? Is clicking on a link really so much of a burden that it's objectionable? In which case, if that's so, then don't read the thing and don't "bother" commenting upon what hasn't been read.

Not you but others. I've explained my course of actions very specifically and anyone else can read that Notice and see that Reuters restricts full reprints. I did what I considered to be compliant, cautious and respectful of not only Reuters as proprietor of the content, but of the FR site for the display of the extract. I'd not want to put the site at risk once I concluded the Copyright Notice disallows full reprints, for whatever use. Extracts o.k.'d for personal use is one thing but not the full article to be reprinted for any reason without prior, written permission. Seems quite clear to me. AND, my motives for the extract were consideration for FR, not to "hassle" some lazy reader who considers clicking on a link to read an article undue tasking. Or, an article exerpted to be of lesser importance than a full reprint from some other source, either legitimately or illigitimately.

I pay attention to copyright requirements for use. It's offensive to see people disregard them. It's also, quite literally, PUNISHABLE BY FINE.

The civvie ammo isn't up to the previous performance....but the SS 196 ammo is at 1940 fps...and uses a Hornaday V-Max 40 grain that is frangible...I like frangible...1.6" grouping at 100 yards! Me LIKE!

Oh, and the horizontal top load clip is reduced to a 30 shot load...but if you dissassemble the clip, and remove the spacer, you void the warranty on the clip, but have a 50 shot clip!

35
posted on 02/17/2006 12:44:59 PM PST
by Itzlzha
("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")

I would rather be in compliance with laws that apply to individuals as does this copyright notice and then work downward from there.

I opt to chose behavior that accommodates what I deduce as being required and lawful behavior, and that almost always works out to compliment all other areas of my activities, venues included.

If I see webcontent that has a specific copyright notice that forbids reproduction IN WHOLE as to the proprietary work there, I'll abide by that in respect to the original content. If a website does not, I'm still doing what I regard as correct and right by following the OWNER of that proprietary content as to how they want THEIR WORK handled by others, or not handled.

In this case, Reuters says no complete reproduction without prior, written permission. Thus, since the content belongs to Reuters, I'm going to do what Reuters -- the OWNER OF THE CONTENT -- requests as to displaying PART or an excerpt of their content (here, anywhere else, it's not a case of the site requirements where content is displyed in reproduction, but of the requirements of the site THAT OWNS THE ORIGINAL CONTENT).

More people should pay attention to those copyright notices and thus, there'd be no lawsuits about violations of them.

I still think it's incredibly both lazy and petty that anyone would even object to having to follow ONE link inorder to read an article. And, if that's a problem, then they might consider saving their energy and just clicking off the thread and avoid all that labor involved in the keyboard 'work' necessary to comment.

As to importance and perceptions of importance, if someone thinks content from Reuters is not as important as others, then they're already identifying as someone who might want to go comment elsewhere. Honestly, what a foolish thing to even think about. I have issues with Reuters as publisher as I do also AP based upon bad or good reporting and their individual politics, but if someone is so lazy as to not access a link and evaluate (anyway) an article as "less important" (or even "more important" -- the point is the evaluation), then there's little expectation that there's going to be much contributed by them for obvious reasons.

It's a specious line of reasoning. I appreciate any site not requiring full compliance with copyright notices, whatever, but the point is END USER BEHAVIOR ON THE INTERNET in compliance (or disregard) of a proprietary copyright notice. It's a case of ownership of that material and compliance with, literally, "an owner's requirements for use" -- I don't take someone's car out of their driveway unless I have prior permission to do so and I don't copy and reprint in display format proprietary content that the owner of that content does not want reprinted in full format. It's a case of asking permission to "take the car out of the driveway" as opposed to simply standing in someone's driveway otherwise without permission and visually admiring their car. One requires permission, one does not (necessarily), unless they have a sign posted, "No Trespassing" (equivalent with no reprints of any kind).

The websites I've seen in only the past two days that display objections as to copyright requirements are all muslim sites who are encouraging disregard for copyright protections -- claiming that (I don't agree with this) that "information is free" as preposterous as that sounds in relationship to their current upsets. Point being that muslims are angry at the very notion that an individual has ownership of informational content. An interesting point here.

People who write and produce and render and all that, that's their work, their work product. If they restrict use of their work by others, it's their right. If they make notice that they have no restrictions for use and/or reprint, then they also have that right. The point is that the OWNER of the CONTENT decides how the material they create and produce is used. Where it's used does not control how it's used, but how it's used is controlled legally by the owner of the CONTENT.

Yeegads, I try to do what is right and correct and you're trying to suggest that I'm some "enemy" of "the site"? How horrible IS that?

For heaven's sake...you are obviously influenced by some negative history that I have no desire to share. I sympathize if your sense of ownership of FR has been offended or threatened or whatever by whomever, and would not wish that on anyone, but trying to suck total do-gooders such as myself with best intentions and who has taken great time and sobriety to explain very obvious points to you, to try and frame that as posing some "enemy" status or affiliation to you and yours is just obscene.

Reuters has a copyright notice. I abided by that notice. Someone on the thread -- you/other -- was irritated that you had to access a link to read the full article (too much work involved, I guess).

I can't sympathize with your sense of being putupon by being required to access a link to a story but I see links all the time on FR and access them when and as interested and from the look of things, so do many others using FR who ARE NOT irritated by the one-click "work" involved of accessing content via links here.

Go ahead and "point out" a paranoid perception of me abiding by a proprietary copyright notice. It was done with the hopes that I was in respect of this site and in respect of the owner of that content. Any arguements and "lawsuits" and such is none of my business between this site and any other but if more users did what I just did, sites with user contributed cutnpasted content would not have to argue with one another.

How you can be so threatened and irritated by this very polite and considerate behavior by me is mind boggling.

Copyrights exist to claim ownership of original content. They notify anyone else how the material is to be regarded for use in all capacities. I respect them and I try to do what owners request of others to do in regards to their work.

I have no idea how you could even try to allege that that responsible behavior by me is in any way affiliated with 'trying to shut down' FR, or being "an enemy" of the site. Anything but. Your comments are incredibly problematic and quite inconsiderate.

...We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

You misunderstand my point. I hardly was accusing you of being an enemy of FR, only that your practice of excerpting is consistent with the legal posture of the two most notorious enemies of FR, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post.

You may (and did) excerpt anything you like. FR management tells us which one we must. If you wish to excerpt more than FR requires, that's your business, but I don't have to like it. That's my business.

We've certainly succeeded in blowing our differences over posting practices completely out of proportion on this thread, although it was an interesting discussion.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.